The piece in the Times was great!! There’s zero proof that celebrity endorsements drastically affect political races — maybe local elections with little name recognition, but rarely major national races! TSwift endorsing Harris might drive a few extra votes, but it’s going to be negligible compared to investing more in ‘boring’ political things like canvassing, phone calls, ads.
Just as a lot of voters want to throw up their hands & give the work of politics to celebrities, i think a lot of democratic party leaders legitimately think that sending out celebrities can substitute for actual organizing or campaigning. Hilary’s campaign was the perfect example of that. ‘oh, just throw out the cast of Hamilton on the trail, that will get people excited,’ that strategy failed catastrophically! Democrats would be better served coming up with an actual platform, and making a case to voters, and involving them in the process, and not praying that the endorsements of Taylor Swift and Dick Cheney can somehow create a magical electoral firewall
yeah the Hillary campaign to me is was among other things a clear attempt to cast Hillary as an "aspirational" figure (the suffragette white, etc), and it didn't work… partly because Hillary Clinton was, for reasons both fair and unfair, a person who had already been intensely loathed _for three decades_ lol. i had a bit about this that i cut out because i felt like it was too many ingredients in the soup. but i did go look at the NYT comments and a lot of them are like "no, Trump won because he's a celebrity, it totally matters"… people are really in denial about how bad her campaign was i guess.
it feels reminiscent to me of how liberal/left people online talk about voting, i.e., getting very hectoring and moralistic about it… but that's not really going to inspire somebody to go out to vote instead of staying home. that person will probably still stay home!
I've always thought it was absolutely bizarre how little they mattered, but the aspirational vs practical dichotomy here finally gives a strong explanation.
Concerning another angle of the piece, I've always understood the Vonnegut stuff (and that whole vein of "art doesn't do anything in politics") on the basis that even if art moves people, it doesn't move *powerful* people, and thus it doesn't change policy, only make policies a bit more or less popular, in a way that doesn't ever really threaten power. But I wonder if your insight about aspiration can apply here too, in some way, or if something similar is going on, where we generally only allow art to shift our minds in some ways but not others. Insert coherent thought about conservatives becoming shocked every time they realize ________ is about them or is against them etc etc
I actually don't think conservatives are that shocked when that happens tbh… I remember when Paul Ryan talked about loving Rage Against the Machine there was a lot of "doesn't he know?????" and the singer got mad but of course Ryan knew… he just didn't care!
However I do think it's true that we are quite ready to be moved in fiction by scenarios that in real life we'd probably be indifferent to; there's actually a line in one of Barbara Pym's novels that sticks with me on this where somebody cheats on his long time gf with a younger woman, then realizes he's probably about to string along the younger girl and thinks to himself "he was horrified at discovering such cynical cruelty in himself, he the tender-hearted, kind to animals, as Catherine always said, and sometimes even weeping at the cinema." iirc this moment of self-awareness makes zero difference in what he does.
I don’t think celebrity endorsements matter in isolation, but they can create a sense of momentum all together. A sense of excitement. This is IT! There was definitely something going on with Obama in 2008. I don’t think Springsteen changed anyone’s mind but it seemed to underpin the cultural importance of the moment and maybe added to the sense of inevitability. I don’t think Harris benefits from the same sense of being a cultural phenomenon so a Taylor Swift probably wouldn’t give her much of a push. Now if this was AOC running in 2032, that era’s Taylor Swift (still her?) endorsement might be politically useful, combined with all the actor/musician benefits that would inevitably occur.
If the idea here is that celebrities can add to the sense of excitement for candidates already themselves generating excitement, but that they can't generate excitement for politicians who cannot doso on their own, then that is another way of saying "celebrity endorsements don't matter."
I think nurturing a nascent excitement matter. With the electoral college system making small regional margins significant, keeping excitement levels around a candidate high can alter the outcome of an election.
I do agree something was going on with Obama in 2008 but I'm reluctant to attribute some of that energy to celebrities I guess. But I should go revisit the facts before making a judgment. To me, Obama managed to become a politician-celebrity weirdly by very much leaning into "being a statesman" over being a personality, like his self-presentation, his oratory, etc., were such an impeccable professional front it created a void people filled with themselves.*
But I should probably confess I've always emotionally been totally neutral about Obama… I've only really ever loved one politician (Bernie). So I think there's something about him that I don't really get. So like I said I should really go back to The Facts.
But I guess part of why I dooo feel like they don't matter is because we know the overwhelming majority of celebrities already present themselves as center-liberal in how they vote, so I don't sit around being like "who will Emma Stone vote for" because I already know. Whereas if Clint Eastwood or another Hollywood Republican suddenly came out swinging for Harris that would be crazy (though I also don't think it would matter that much, Arnold came out pretty hard against Trump IIRC, he had that goofy video with the sword).
And yeah I think the meme politics around Harris are fun (well, were fun) but the basic joke of them is that she's actually very square and uncool and (used to) go on these weird run-on speeches. They're not quite hostile… but they aren't actually about how much you love Kamala Harris.
*now that I think about it he and Taylor kind of have a lot in common lol
I guess the way I think is that they generally bolster rather than boost. Ironically, I think a Taylor Swift endorsement of Trump would help him immensely. Trump is that odd rock star politician who is absolutely lacking in the support of his celebrity peers and I think it costs him beyond the fact that he’s thoroughly contemptible.
it's funny but until you mentioned this I didn't realize that most Trump-friendly celebrities are people who are… also widely disliked by their peers (like Kanye)
The piece in the Times was great!! There’s zero proof that celebrity endorsements drastically affect political races — maybe local elections with little name recognition, but rarely major national races! TSwift endorsing Harris might drive a few extra votes, but it’s going to be negligible compared to investing more in ‘boring’ political things like canvassing, phone calls, ads.
Just as a lot of voters want to throw up their hands & give the work of politics to celebrities, i think a lot of democratic party leaders legitimately think that sending out celebrities can substitute for actual organizing or campaigning. Hilary’s campaign was the perfect example of that. ‘oh, just throw out the cast of Hamilton on the trail, that will get people excited,’ that strategy failed catastrophically! Democrats would be better served coming up with an actual platform, and making a case to voters, and involving them in the process, and not praying that the endorsements of Taylor Swift and Dick Cheney can somehow create a magical electoral firewall
yeah the Hillary campaign to me is was among other things a clear attempt to cast Hillary as an "aspirational" figure (the suffragette white, etc), and it didn't work… partly because Hillary Clinton was, for reasons both fair and unfair, a person who had already been intensely loathed _for three decades_ lol. i had a bit about this that i cut out because i felt like it was too many ingredients in the soup. but i did go look at the NYT comments and a lot of them are like "no, Trump won because he's a celebrity, it totally matters"… people are really in denial about how bad her campaign was i guess.
it feels reminiscent to me of how liberal/left people online talk about voting, i.e., getting very hectoring and moralistic about it… but that's not really going to inspire somebody to go out to vote instead of staying home. that person will probably still stay home!
I've always thought it was absolutely bizarre how little they mattered, but the aspirational vs practical dichotomy here finally gives a strong explanation.
Concerning another angle of the piece, I've always understood the Vonnegut stuff (and that whole vein of "art doesn't do anything in politics") on the basis that even if art moves people, it doesn't move *powerful* people, and thus it doesn't change policy, only make policies a bit more or less popular, in a way that doesn't ever really threaten power. But I wonder if your insight about aspiration can apply here too, in some way, or if something similar is going on, where we generally only allow art to shift our minds in some ways but not others. Insert coherent thought about conservatives becoming shocked every time they realize ________ is about them or is against them etc etc
I actually don't think conservatives are that shocked when that happens tbh… I remember when Paul Ryan talked about loving Rage Against the Machine there was a lot of "doesn't he know?????" and the singer got mad but of course Ryan knew… he just didn't care!
However I do think it's true that we are quite ready to be moved in fiction by scenarios that in real life we'd probably be indifferent to; there's actually a line in one of Barbara Pym's novels that sticks with me on this where somebody cheats on his long time gf with a younger woman, then realizes he's probably about to string along the younger girl and thinks to himself "he was horrified at discovering such cynical cruelty in himself, he the tender-hearted, kind to animals, as Catherine always said, and sometimes even weeping at the cinema." iirc this moment of self-awareness makes zero difference in what he does.
I don’t think celebrity endorsements matter in isolation, but they can create a sense of momentum all together. A sense of excitement. This is IT! There was definitely something going on with Obama in 2008. I don’t think Springsteen changed anyone’s mind but it seemed to underpin the cultural importance of the moment and maybe added to the sense of inevitability. I don’t think Harris benefits from the same sense of being a cultural phenomenon so a Taylor Swift probably wouldn’t give her much of a push. Now if this was AOC running in 2032, that era’s Taylor Swift (still her?) endorsement might be politically useful, combined with all the actor/musician benefits that would inevitably occur.
If the idea here is that celebrities can add to the sense of excitement for candidates already themselves generating excitement, but that they can't generate excitement for politicians who cannot doso on their own, then that is another way of saying "celebrity endorsements don't matter."
I think nurturing a nascent excitement matter. With the electoral college system making small regional margins significant, keeping excitement levels around a candidate high can alter the outcome of an election.
I do agree something was going on with Obama in 2008 but I'm reluctant to attribute some of that energy to celebrities I guess. But I should go revisit the facts before making a judgment. To me, Obama managed to become a politician-celebrity weirdly by very much leaning into "being a statesman" over being a personality, like his self-presentation, his oratory, etc., were such an impeccable professional front it created a void people filled with themselves.*
But I should probably confess I've always emotionally been totally neutral about Obama… I've only really ever loved one politician (Bernie). So I think there's something about him that I don't really get. So like I said I should really go back to The Facts.
But I guess part of why I dooo feel like they don't matter is because we know the overwhelming majority of celebrities already present themselves as center-liberal in how they vote, so I don't sit around being like "who will Emma Stone vote for" because I already know. Whereas if Clint Eastwood or another Hollywood Republican suddenly came out swinging for Harris that would be crazy (though I also don't think it would matter that much, Arnold came out pretty hard against Trump IIRC, he had that goofy video with the sword).
And yeah I think the meme politics around Harris are fun (well, were fun) but the basic joke of them is that she's actually very square and uncool and (used to) go on these weird run-on speeches. They're not quite hostile… but they aren't actually about how much you love Kamala Harris.
*now that I think about it he and Taylor kind of have a lot in common lol
I guess the way I think is that they generally bolster rather than boost. Ironically, I think a Taylor Swift endorsement of Trump would help him immensely. Trump is that odd rock star politician who is absolutely lacking in the support of his celebrity peers and I think it costs him beyond the fact that he’s thoroughly contemptible.
it's funny but until you mentioned this I didn't realize that most Trump-friendly celebrities are people who are… also widely disliked by their peers (like Kanye)
Would like a comprehensive list of the ways we try to not do the hard work of politics, but then why we don’t want to do that work.
secretly we long for a just monarch (taylor swift) who will usher us into the promised eden of just grilling with our bros
Integralists for Taylor!
BDM's Jacobite/Taylorite movement posting reasonable political discourse on main while trying to usher in the reign of the new monarch in the DMs